Obama needs to fact check his State of the Union speech

President Obama chose carefully from the State of the Union topics to be discussed last night, using only those topics that could best defend his record as president, skipping facts about the national debt and high unemployment, while introducing distortions about spending cuts and jobs created under his administration.

He failed to mention that the cuts were made in the growth of government spending, not an actual decrease in the spending from previous years. He then used these faux cuts to justify higher taxes on small businesses in his “balanced approach” to deficit reduction, which only he would understand.

Obama said that, “After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over 6M new jobs.”

The pertinent facts omitted by President Obama include that he started his count, not when he took office, but from the point in his first term when the job count was at its lowest. The president conveniently ignored almost 5M jobs that were lost up to that point on his watch. Of course, wasn’t that was Bush’s fault?

Private sector jobs did grow by about 6.1M since February of 2010. But from January 2009, the job gain was a only 1.9M in four years, despite almost $800B dollars in stimulus spending using borrowed money.

When the jobs lost in the public sector are included with the jobs gained under Obama, the overall gain drops to 1.2M jobs, not 6M jobs. Jobs created under Obama – 300,000 per year. Just to keep up with population growth at least 125,000 jobs need to be created each month – 1.5M jobs per year – five times more than created in Obama’s first term!

Obama also said, “We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas.”

The fact is that doubling the gas mileage will not occur for 12 more years – eight years after Obama has left office. Wasn’t this supposed to be a speech about the state of the union, today, not when Hillary Clinton is leaving office twelve years from now.

The deal Obama reached with the automakers in 2011 was that autos will have to get 54 mpg versus 27 mpg by 2025. The manufacturers will not even begin making the design changes necessary until 2017 and not all cars will achieve these mileage standards – only the average of corporate fleets must meet the standard.

Obama said in the speech, “Already the Affordable Care Act is helping to reduce the growth of health care costs.”

Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, told lawmakers that he doesn’t know why once-spiraling costs have slowed in recent years. Most of Obamacare doesn’t even take effect until 2014, so costs that have thus far been reduced are not due to the Affordable Care Act.

“We have not attributed the slowdown to any particular factor like the Affordable Care Act,” he told the House Budget Committee, referring to the law enacted in 2010.

The CBO has also estimated that the costs of Obamacare will in fact double to $2.1T dollars compared to the $900B original price tag, while the bill was being passed before it could be read by Nancy Pelosi.

Senator Jeff Sessions, R-Al said, “The bill spends more than the president promised, it covers fewer people — probably 2 million fewer people — and it taxes more than was expected.” Obama seems to have left that point out of the speech.

And finally, Obama stated that, “Study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road. … And for poor kids who need help the most, this lack of access to preschool education can shadow them for the rest of their lives. … Every dollar we invest in high-quality early education can save more than $7 later on — by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime.”

The facts are since Head Start began in 1965, more than $167B has been spent. Therefore, some money must have been spent to examine data to demonstrate the superior success of students that have had the advantage of early childhood programs. As a matter of fact, a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows just the opposite!

In the March 3, 2010 issue of Education Week, a rigorous Federal Head Start impact study found that the program, after producing some initial gains during preschool, had almost no effect on the children’s cognitive, social-emotional, or health outcomes by the end of first grade, compared to a control group of children whose families had access only to the usual community services.

How many factoids did you notice in Obama’s State of the Union speech last night?

And so, morally comforted by that distinction, you choose to denounce Obama as a liar but remain silent about or indifferent to his murderous drone war policy and to the innocent victims that he has killed with it. And this can’t help but make me wonder: Just what does it really mean to you two fellows to be “pro-life”?

Here’s an insight for you to consider: Yes, it’s terrible to be a liar, but it’s far worse to be a murderer.

It seems to me that pro-life folks like yourselves ought to be in the forefront of the opposition to Barry the Bloodthirsty and his war crimes, but that is not what I am seeing.

Rather, I find you folks seem to find some sort of comfort in selective moral indignation: reserving your outrage for Obama’s lies about unemployment, automobiles, health care and education, etc.; and your silence for his lies about his war crimes.

If the terrorists are using innocent people as shields, the terrorists are the ones responsible for any “collateral damage”.

There are other important issues that are not “life or death” concerns. Protecting our rights is one of them. Informing the “low-information voter” about the Leftist Democrats’ propaganda mills, and the half-truths and outright lies that they spew daily, is part of that.

snuss says:
If the terrorists are using innocent people as shields, the terrorists are the ones responsible for any “collateral damage”.

That’s sounds like a pretty big “if” to me, Snuss. Can you document that this is responsible for the civilian death toll from drones? And if so, to what extent?

Does “protecting our rights” include the president’s assumed right to kill anyone he wants anywhere in the world, with or without Congressional declaration of war? And if so, what becomes of the rule of law and the Constitution in this event?

Do you regard “Leftist Democrats’ … half-truths and outright lies” about non-life/or/death concerns to be of more importance than the Obama regime’s damned lies about the civilian toll taken by its drone war crimes?

It’s a matter of moral priorities, Snuss. What are yours?

Mine are easy: Above all ideology is humanity. All ideologies, policies, dogmas, propaganda and political spin campaigns must be evaluated to determine whether they respect inalienable human rights. Those that fail this test do not deserve anything less than exposure and denunciation.

Therefore, I have no problem with denouncing Obama as a liar, but I think that he should be as loudly denounced for the lies that do the most harm to other human beings as for those that do not deal with life or death concerns, don’t you? I do not see that happening in propaganda mills that are controlled by or sympathetic to either the Democrats or Republicans, do you?

Obama’s drone attack policies amount to his assuming the right to play God. I am an agnostic secular humanist and that outrages me. Why aren’t believers like you and Ted Biondo at least as upset as I am?

You avoided the question about why you used a made-up Thomas Jefferson quote until it came up in a subsequent thread, and you still have not addressed why you condemned President Obama for making intrasession recess appointments — which were considered constitutional at the time — when he has actually made far fewer of those appointments than his predecessors from both parties. This is not the behavior of an actual fact-checker.

I will grant you that SOTUs are Kabuki Theater regardless of who is in office, but you have repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot discern fact from fiction — so just don’t try to pretend anymore.

Ted, this is yet another example of a display of emotion that you use to avoid addressing the points of a post. These aren’t typos in a post — these are points that destroy your arguments.

Look at the recent thread about intrasession recess appointments: when considered in light of the 11th Circuit opinion and the historical precedent, your attempt to portray this as an unconstitutional abuse of power by the Obama administration crumbled. Your point was ruined. Did you address this? No, you completely ignored that fact and pretended that nobody caught that flaw in your reasoning.

On your more recent topic about some Catholics’ opposition to contraception coverage, you are still ignoring questions about whether you would allow Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists who own businesses to remove coverage for a good chunk of health care based on their religious beliefs. This is at the heart of your argument, but you have ignored it for over a year. Why? Do you realize this cripples your argument and you hope that nobody notices? Well, we do.

Look at your response when a reader pointed out that you used a bogus Thomas Jefferson quote. You ignored it. Pretended that never happened. The fact that you don’t bother to verify the accuracy and truthfulness of anything you post is bad enough, but your response made it worse. Instead of acknowledging that you made a mistake, you ignored it as long as you could and then, eventually, said that it didn’t matter anyway.

Given this behavior, Ted, do you expect any rational, logical person to find you qualified to fact-check anything? And your response is only:

“Adam – what the hell is the matter with you? You are sick!”

Well, as you said to a reader just a few weeks ago:

“Your comment sounds pretty emotional to me with personal attacks thrown in as well, [Ted]. No comments on the facts however, typical for someone who emotes.”

Adam, I’m through with your personal attacks. Just, the last one – “Ted, the very notion that you are qualified to fact-check anything is laughable. You once averred that “the blog is fact checked, FYI” but upon pressing admitted that you did not do it and that you didn’t know who, if anyone, did and then deemed the matter …”

Adam, if I chose not to respond to a personal attack or even an issue, that’s my decision, not yours. I have only a certain amount of time per day and I’m not going to sit and argue with you all day long on some trivial, mundane point again and again, such as your Jehovah’s Witnesses or your Christian Scientists, when I can post another issue from our president showing him in another lie to thousands of people on this site, facebook and by tweeting.

BYW and for the last time, if people work for anyone with religious beliefs and the private owner doesn’t cover certain procedures for healthcare, the worker should find another job elsewhere and not force the owner to violate his religion. It’s a free country, at least for the time being!! How long under Obama, I can’t say.

However, I am no longer going to approve your comments. I have only banned one another commentor in two and one-half years, who though he made good points, always started or ended with a personal attack on me. I don’t deserve it, and I will not let you keep it up. Your comments will be trashed as soon I come back from whatever I am doing to help taxpayers. So, if you don’t want to waste your time, I suggest you comment on another blog, sorry.

@ redrover: If the President were a Republican, there would be a lot more coverage of this issue.

As to the drone strikes, we are at war with Al-Qaida. When we find them, we should try to kill or capture them. If they are hiding amidst civilians, we should do our best to avoid civilian casualties, but the terrorists still need to be killed or captured, before they kill more of our people. Do you suggest that we allow terrorists to run free, because we MIGHT kill civilians? Terrorists gave up their rights not to be “targeted”, when they attack, or plot to attack, us, and our allies.

How you answer the question about the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientists is not some “trivial, mundane point” but goes directly to the root of your position. Your hesitation to address it shows that you know your position is impractical if allowed to be used by members of other faiths.

Ted, you call everything you don’t agree with a personal attack. It isn’t. Show me an actual ad hominem argument I have made. You can’t because I stick to the facts and offer supporting evidence. You may not like that, but my arguments are not fallacious. I don’t say things like “Adam – what the hell is the matter with you? You are sick!” Those statements have only come from you – not me.

Your account is not being terminated by RRStar.com. I am just not allowing your comments on this blog and that is my decision. Other blogs have done it a lot more than me – I’m now up to two commenters. I’m sorry, but I don’t deserve that kind of treatment from anyone after what I’ve tried to accomplish for Rockford for the past 20 years.

You agree that at our sole discretion, and in our sole judgment, we or our agent may terminate your account at any time with or without cause.

Termination for cause may include, but is not limited to:

Violations of these Terms of Use
Violations of other posted rules of conduct
Violations of law or intellectual property rightsHarassment or belittling conduct toward individuals, companies or other third parties

Snuss, I’ve heard that about Pat. I thought that was probably just him, but that really says something when our community leaders — plural, apparently — would prefer to ignore and now ban opposing viewpoints than articulate their positions and engage in thorough discussion. I simply don’t understand Ted’s motives here: why post something if all you want to hear are people agreeing with you? Why take it as a personal offense when commenters dig right into the heart of the issue and point out factual and logic flaws?

It’s a sad sign when our leaders indicate that they’d prefer to completely insulate themselves from those who challenge their version of the facts.

Only someone who routinely loses control of their own forum bans commenting in this fashion. Go ahead, Ted – ban me too. Trust me when I say, I will not miss your blithering mess of fact-free nonsense one iota. The same goes for your lightweight community of readers.

Jake, while you are writing to Gatehouse, be sure to mention that thousands and thousand of hits from all over the country on this blog occur every month. I don’t have to put up with personal attacks nor disrespect from you, Adam or other bloggers.

Besides, I know my blog is not the only blog or place you read on the RRStar.com site. I’m just not going to put up with these comments anymore. If you also want to go somewhere else on the site, go ahead, I’m not stopping you.

I’ve put up with being called names in my public life for 19 years. I don’t have to do it here, nor will I. Just let me know what you want to do. By your absence, I will assume you no longer want to comment. Thanks for your comments up to this point.

Adam, as to the Jefferson quote, it is widely used as being accurate, although I learned that it is not. I can’t fault Ted for relying on the accuracy of many internet sources, in this case. It isn’t worth the effort that you put in to reliving it, ad nauseum.

Just think of all the rabid Leftists who believe that Gov. Palin stated that she could see Russia from her house (it was actress Tina Fey), and refuse to accept that it didn’t happen, even when confronted with the facts. I am much more worried about that blind acceptance of Leftist propaganda.

Hits are irrelevant in this context. A hit is any file that is served whether that is this page or any of the images, CSS elements, Java scripts, etc. on the page. Just by loading this page, you have generated many hits. Of greater importance are page views and — certainly to Gatehouse — ad impressions and clickthroughs.

How do you know that your blog is not all that I read on this site? Where have you been called names here? Not from me; I know that much because that’s not how I behave.

The Terms of Use also prohibit false, misleading and inaccurate statements. That you infer a personal attack where there is none does not just make it so. I have made no such personal attacks; indeed, I have consistently argued the merits — effectively. Similarly, if you feel belittled or harassed that your readers ask you to articulate the basis for your positions, you could consider taking positions that can be better defended. It’s really that easy. Just as I stated in my initial examples on this thread: your positions on intrasession recess appointments and Catholics and contraception have big holes and, when pointed out, you call it a personal attack instead of recognizing it for the fallacious argument that it is. If I’m not pointing that out, Ted, others will. Taking your argumentation skills up a few notches could take that off the table and facilitate an actual fact-based discussion from which everybody can benefit.

You say that your motives are clear but you did not continue to say what those motives are. You say that you “will not be disrespected nor be subjected to [my] personal attacks”. Fortunately, I have never lobbed a personal attack your way — I only dispute the merits of your positions. But let’s be clear about respect: it is earned, and calling people “sick” in a public forum is a strange way to earn respect.

Adam you said, “Fortunately, I have never lobbed a personal attack your way — I only dispute the merits of your positions.”

Here are just a few of the personal attacks I found that you have made. There are double this amount of comments made by you that I didn’t even check. I could find many more examples, but I’m not going to waste any more of my time! These comments are enough from you! I’m through!

BTW, I don’t have to respond to your comments or anyone else. Most bloggers do not respond! I will only respond if I think I can provide more information from now on.
—————————————————————————————————————–
Ted, the very notion that you are qualified to fact-check anything is laughable.

You avoided the question about why you used a made-up Thomas Jefferson quote until it came up in a subsequent thread, …

Ted, do you see the dangers of posting misinformation? You could have addressed my point at the beginning and avoided getting your readers so confused.

Thanks for the update, Ted. Now, how about you actually address the issue that you have been steadfastly ignoring for more than 50 comments:

Ted, since you say that you’re not intentionally trying to mislead your readers, then you must just be this gullible and repeatedly accidentally wrong as I questioned you about last night, right? At this juncture, don’t you think that it’s important to evaluate why you’re always wrong about facts and argumentation? Take a debate class. Sit in a court room for an afternoon. Read a dictionary and wikipedia. Do something to stimulate some intellectual curiosity. Or just rebrand this blog as “Emotional conjecture from a man who refuses to live in an evidence-based world.”

I have repeatedly stayed on topic and pointed out that Ted is mendaciously attempting to paint Obama’s recent appointments as a partisan executive power-grab while ignoring the facts that Obama’s predecessors actually did this far more.

It is dangerous that you don’t realize why you’re making these mistakes. When your only explanation is that other people bought it so so did you, you demonstrate that you’re just following others and not applying any thought. I’ve asked you before: are you just this gullible and always accidentally wrong, or are you intentionally misleading your readers?

The fact that you did not respond when that was pointed out in the comments of that post indicates a lack of responsibility on your part, Ted. Your credibility is at stake. Or was at stake.

A stand-up guy would research a subject before pontificating about it. A stand-up guy would admit when he’s wrong. A stand-up guy would not call people names. A stand-up guy would be rational instead of emotional. Ted demonstrates none of the traits of this stand-up guy.

Wilson, I have repeatedly demonstrated that Ted intentionally lies. But to your point: Ted copies and pastes stuff that is “circulating on the Internet” and does no fact checking of his own.

Yes Ted, but the “mission statement” also calls for a “fact-based discussion” and your posts in this thread are anything but fact-based.

I don’t believe for a minute that the “overwhelming majority” of people take you seriously, but even if that many people believe what you say, that does not make what you say true.

… how important it is that those of us who research a topic, fact-check you and apply critical thinking point out where you’re wrong so your readers are not led astray by your lies.

Facts matter. Ted, when you continually misrepresent the truth, we are left to wonder if you’re intentionally misleading your readers or you’re simply gullible enough to unquestioningly believe the spin that the right-leaning infotainment outlets want you to. Which is it, Ted?

Ted says: “You are so right Terry on Social Security – I wrote that it is a ponzi scheme in numerous posts.” And you’ve been wrong in numerous posts, Ted, but nice job at congratulating yourself on being wrong.

Snuss, now what are you talking about? I did not state any of that. Now you’re just making stuff up like Ted.
Stating that “many readers …object to [your] ludicrous propaganda” is also a statement of fact, not a personal attack.

Ted, I see that you have been online to post a new entry and comment on others, so I presume that you have had opportunity to respond here but have chosen not to because your statements are simply indefensible.

You have demonstrated that you’re only interested in spin, emotion, lies and hyperbole and are not influenced by fact, logic, law or our Constitution. Look at how many times he has said that the theft of signs by criminals is a first amendment violation. Facts and reason offend him; he’s (Ted) only interested in lies and emotion.